memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Nominations for administratorship
← Memory Alpha: Administrators Please read the full policy on becoming an administrator before nominating someone (or yourself) for administrator privileges. Nominations submitted on this page are considered for at least seven days; during this time, both Administrators and registered members may express their opinions and vote. Unregistered members may not vote. Nominations must be unanimously approved in order to be accepted. Nominations that are unresolved after fourteen days will be rejected. Past nominations, both rejected and accepted, can be viewed here. ---- ---- -- Jaz (1/1/1) This is a self nomination. I have been an archivist here for about ten months, but it is really in the past month that I have stepped up my contributions to Memory Alpha. My work has shown I am committed to upholding our policy, especially canon policy. About a week ago I spent about an hour reverting the work of a vandal, to restore our articles. I have also done a lot of the nitty-gritty work, such as adding pictures to our novel pages, fixing common spelling mistakes (by searching for mispelled versions of commonly used words at MA), and welcoming new users and IPs. I hope you will consider my self-nomination - for I only ask so that I may further my ability to help. --Jaz 00:53, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) Support *'Support'. Obviously. Jaz 00:53, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Great contributions. I've been on here for a lot of the day and he has contributed to a large variety of articles. Jaz is ready to take on sysop rights. :) --Galaxy001 06:03, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) Oppose * Mild oppose. I don't want to sound like a sore loser, because it honestly has nothing to do with my feelings or Jaz personally, but I think he should wait a while. According to the Wikicities stats, he joined on April 23 of last year, but even 9er (a very new user) had more contributions than him as late as two months ago. I really like the enthusiasm I've seen from him (450 of his 850 edits were in January of this year!), but I'd like to wait a while before we make him an admin. I realize that edit counts are not the sole determining factor, but I'd like potential admins to demonstrate consistency, as the recent burst of persistence seems to have started a few weeks prior to his nomination (he's usurped my "welcoming committee" role :P). I'll change my mind if someone else can convince me otherwise. (On the side, I think he's a bit too anti-apocrypha -- or pro-canon if you're a Republican -- for my taste, but that's personal feelings and not voting rationale.) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 02:40, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) Neutral/Comments *To comment in my defense, my recent wave of edits (as you said, about 500 in 2 or 3 weeks) is the reason I want to be admin, not vice versa. I'm only here to help. You'll notice I have never vandalized a page, or acted contrary to our policy to my knowledge. Yes, two months ago I was ranked 73rd on wikistats, but I've made almost 900 edits, and I am an active member of our community. I nominated myselft because I think I can make MA a better place. --Jaz *I'm just commenting at the moment, because I haven't had time to check Jaz's contributions yet. I'm basing this on the other comments made here, mainly on the comment by Jaz above. He says: "my recent wave of edits is the reason I want to be an admin". I think, and you can read a lengthy comment about that on the talk page of this article, that neither should "many article edits" be the sole reason for becoming an admin, nor vice versa. Someone who likes to edit and contribute much content doesn't necessarily need to be an admin. And someone who would be a good admin doesn't need to have a minimum of X article edits per week. Admin status is not a reward for activity. I will try to look into this and vote when I find the time, but until then, my suggestion would be to check whether you really want to be an admin, or just an active contributor... -- Cid Highwind 13:40, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) **I just want to help, and I think I can help a lot more as an admin. Jaz 16:20, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Comment:' That's why I think we need a discussion on the process before nominating more admins. Sure, Jaz helps us, but does he need admin rights for this? There are not that much privileges that an admin has, so if he want to help the project he can do that as user too. More and more I get the impression that this process is treated like some kind of promotion of active users so that they have some kind of "medal" for their contribs. But this is covered by the featured articles, not by the voting for adminship. Wiki-admins should be people that proved that they are able to moderate discussions or help other users (newbies) with problems in an ideal way. Based on this, they get some possibilities like blocking vandals or pages to solve problems, but these cases are not that common that we need 20 Admins for that. This is no reason to oppose his nomination, so I won't do it, but it would be useful to clarify our needs concerning admins before going on with this. --Memory 22:42, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) **To quote the policy: "the more administrators the better". I think I have proven I can be trusted with this job, my record is spotless, and I already perform some admin-like tasks such as welcoming new users and reverting vandals. I think we do need more admin, because there are times when there isn't one available. I make most of my edits between 11:30 PM and 12:30 AM EST, a time I find there are often very few people logged in, and there was an occasion where I found myself reverting a vandal, and it was about 15 minutes before an admin was able to disable him (I can't take credit for this alsone, Zsynga did a lot of them too). As I've said before, I want to do this because I think my assistance can make MA a better place, and I have proven myself to be both competent and trustworthy. Jaz 22:49, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Neutral'. I read this earlier and meant to vote, but I don't think I can one way or the other. Jaz is a great contributor, but the questions of his consistency/motives and a couple cases in the recent changes list (such as putting a PNA on a blank page instead of listing it for immediate deletion) make me think twice about it. Like Memory said not enough to oppose, but I don't think I can support either. I'm a lurker who's on at the same time as Jaz, and it seems that Shran and the Vedek are on to revert the vandalism if that's the concern. ---Broik 06:08, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) **True, but it is not fair to discuss limiting administrators for various reasons. Just because Shran and Vedek are the main vandalism reverters dosen't mean that there can't be more or backup reverters. If Jaz is a major contributor (which he is), then it is fair enough to give him the opertunity of stepping up to sysop rights. If we want to limit the number of admins, put it on Ten Forward. Right now is the time to say yay or nay to Jaz (I say yay, see above). --Galaxy001 01:01, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)